get_cursor_position

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return format (a dict with x and y integers), which indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., multi-monitor coordinates) or confirm the lack of side effects, though the 'get' verb implies no mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and immediately follow with the return type. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no complex inputs. The output schema exists and the description explicitly states the return structure. Given the low complexity and available context, the description is fully adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The input schema is empty, and the 100% schema coverage baseline for no parameters is satisfied.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets the current mouse cursor position, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like mouse_move and mouse_click, which perform actions rather than retrieving state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies this tool is used to retrieve the cursor position, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives. While it is obvious that a getter would be used for reading, the description does not state conditions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.